In case you presumed that I have picked up terminology from any Greek grammar, I actually have never learnt in the traditional way, whether for better or for worse, partly because I never knew where to find the resources. So unfortunately I cannot classify those words according to the categories you may have learnt. However I am quite certain that there is no connotation of time in that present participle "who believes" in John 3:16. In my opinion the Greek present participle is used for only two purposes:Jong Ha Lee wrote:David, thanks for your comments. Excuse me if I ask a few more questions. How do you classify the present participle in John 3:16. What category do you put it in? Is it the progressive (descriptive) or something else?
(examples taken from John 1)
(1) one that does something (which is the default)
(1.1) [15,...] "λεγων" (more like a circumlocution actually)
(1.2)  "πιστευουσιν", [15,27] "ερχομενος",  "ων",  "βοωντος",  "αιρων",  "βαπτιζων",  "βαπτιζων",  "ερμηνευομενον",  "μεθερμηνευομενον"
(2) one that is doing something at that moment
(2.1) [29,47] "ερχομενον", [32,33] "καταβαινον",  "μενον",  "περιπατουντι",  "λαλουντος",  "ακολουθουντας",  "οντα",  "αναβαινοντας",  "καταβαινοντας"
I do not distinguish between gnomic and non-gnomic usage because I think the line is a fine one. Also others may have slightly different "classification", but we may actually be understanding it in the same way. Since the "bare form" (1) fits nicely in John 3:16, I take it to mean just that and nothing more.
From my perspective, these two are used as in (1) as well, as there is no contextual emphasis on a continuous action at one specific moment. It is clear from the context that what is stated is meant to refer to everyone under heaven, and indeed the previous line uses a universal quantification, "ουδε εις", to make the point clear. Thus in your terminology I suppose you can say that it is gnomic. I would just say that it is true of everyone and the standard translation conveys it accurately: "[there] is not [a] righteous [one], not even one. [there] is not [one] who understands. [there] is not [one] who seeks out God." It is not specifically stating that no one continuously understands or continuously seeks out God, but just as the first phrase simply concerns whether one is righteous or unrighteous and not whether one is continuously righteous, so also the subsequent phrases also concern whether one understands or not and whether one seeks out God or not.Jong Ha Lee wrote:Guys, how would you classify or describe both participles in Romans 3:11 (οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ συνίων, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν)? Do they have gnomic force? If not, why not?